On 1/21/2011 7:12 PM, David Love wrote: > Have you done that? If so, what specific material and dimension did you > use and how did you anchor it to the underside of the strut? Unsolicited opinion, but while I've never done it, I'd use a #40 water hard drill rod and a filled epoxy like JB Weld >How often > do you think poor treble is in part due to inadequately hardened capo > bars? This is why I've never done it. Since I've become aware of some of the interactions between bridge terminations, soundboard function, capo hardness, and front duplex configuration, the hardness of the capo has moved back a couple of steps in the priority queue for me. The area in question is typically the victim of soundboard impedance problems, bridge termination problems, tuned front duplex problems, and capo shape and hardness problems combined. In my experience, building a soundboard that's adequately stiff and functional in the top half of the scale, capping the bridge with a good solid laminated cap, disposing of the tuned front duplex by substituting a half round counter bearing bar that provides an adequate string counter bearing angle, and as short a front duplex as possible puts the need to harden the capo in question. All the above meets most of my performance criteria without the imperative for addressing further capo hardness. >I know Overs addressed this some years ago on the list but I’ve > encountered various Steinway pianos at different times where I was > suspicious about the capo bar but don’t really have a reliable way to > tell or test. I have no doubt that what Ron is doing in hardening the capo and counter bearings results in a tonal refinement. I consider it a diminishing returns cutoff call. After addressing the foundation list of traditional design deficiencies, I'd call capo hardening additional icing on the cake. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC